Originally Posted by Bittabola
As one of our fellows pointed out here
, it is acceptable to have 5 ftL brightness for a 3D movie, while 2D acceptable brightness is 4 ftL. If this is true and I use JVC RS50 projector with 1.8 gain non-silver screen, I can have as big as 160" screen and the visitors will be pleased.
-- OR --
should I better go with LG CF3D projector with much higher brightness but necessity of a silver screen?
5/4 Fls? Acceptable? I'd rather say that's barely tolerable, and would require absolute light control. Many do try to justify sub standard performance (ie: brightness) but the advantage of 3D isn't worth spending many $1000.00s of dollars (Euros) just to realize that it isn't a very dynamic image.
Methinks the JVC advocates are pushing their fav products a bit too hard....but that's understandable to an extent because used properly they are terrific PJs. I once installed a RS2 for a 225" screen, when most all on here said it would be a fruitless gesture, but that screen also had an estimated Gain of 3.0+ so there was that difference.
Despite JVC's push toward exceptional performance, price notwithstanding, the 3D capable JVCs just are not in the same category as the CF3D. They are specifically oriented toward Active 3D, they do not do Passive "as is", and will not do so until the Engineers at JVC decide to go the 2x Light Engine route.
The CF3D's claim to fame is the quality of it's Passive 3D presentations. It is in a class by itself when comparing the quality and depth of it's Passive 3D image against ANY Active 3D offering.
It does possess the ability for Active Sequential w/Shutter Glasses, and would in fact be a sterling performer in that regard...IF
the screen size was held back to at / under 120" diagonal. Those darn Shutter Glasses just attenuate too much light to be effective when the Screen's brightness doesn't start out so over the Top it is unwatchable in any other Format except Active 3D. This is bad enough an issue with normal sized screens let alone a 200" monster.
But there are solutions that exist that run counter to having a $5000.00+ custom made screen made up. And one needs not be snookered by excessive spark-lies due to the use of high gain metallic particles. The CF3D can run on one Light Engine, and/or at a reduced Bulb output as well, so such highly reflective screens can be then used to their best advantage with brighter 2D content.
Much of the confusing and contradictory info on all this is due simply to a gross lack of experience by the vast majority...it is a new PJ and most 3D advocates have lined up behind "active 3D" to avoid the older solution of using twin PJs and Polarizing Filters.
No matter what screen you choose, the CF3D is the best choice for you for 3D at the sizes your considering. And the cost of Passive 3D glasses is so much lower than Shutter Glasses that it's kinda crazy to even compare the two in that regard. That's gonna be an important factor for someone who is going tio have 60 people to supply Glasses to.